[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)

[Per A.J. Andersson]

Hi!

Sad for seeing you so disappointed. Good to see you have insight 
in butterflies. So I hope you will make your knowledge visible 
on dewp, where neither genera so far have found its way into 
articles. enwp (together with viwp!) has at least the genus 
"Jameela" as an article.

That aside, is it really a disaster that svwp relies on 
scientific texts that was unquestioned until three years ago? I 
think maybe there are more pressing concerns in the development 
of our wikipedias.

Best of wishes,
/Per
Paracel63 at svwp

2013-06-17, 22:29, skrev Kurt Kulac:

>i don´t want to repeat all those arguments already quoted (lennard
>already mentioned achim raschkas criticism, which i fully agree with),
>since what happend, already happend, and will unstoppably happen in the
>future.  but i would say first of all the strategic goal is not to
>contribute hundreds of mistakes a day. just to take the 1 millionth
>article Erysichton elaborata: after an advice on the talk page a HUMAN
>added, that the species is probably synonymized with Erysichton palmyra.
>so far, so good. but even this correction is not enough. in 2010 the
>genus erysichton was redefined and a new genus, jameela was described.
>both taxa now desrcibed as in sv.wikipedia are invalid.
>
>so just concerning this tiny tiny group of articles, there is already a
>bunch of mistakes, the bot copied out of outdated databases. wouldn´t be
>a big deal, if somebody mentioned that the articles sticked to the old
>view. but that´s something a bot can´t handle. so how reliable is the
>rest of the articles?
>
>a bot can be a convenient helper for authors, who know, how to handle
>it, as it seems has happened with the creation of the articles about
>swedish lakes (i´m no expert with that though). but it is a desastrous
>tool for our whole movement, if you create hundreds of thousands (!)
>articles, without the slightest idea, how to handle the contradictions,
>that will appear doubtlessly?
>
>it´s a sad thing, that you mention quality and this action in one
>centence...
>
>truly utterly disappointed encyclopedic greetings,
>kurt
>
>
>
>
>
>